Andrew Loh
In a democracy, the people elect its representatives to Parliament. That is the purpose of having elections. Any schemes which go against this principle should be rejected. Why? The idea of having citizens elect their Members of Parliament is based on the notion that anyone who wants to, in effect, be in the driving seat has to have the support of the people. This in turn subjects the elected members to be accountable to the people. It is through this principle that a people is said to have a say in the affairs of the state.
With the latest round of changes to the political system, as announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday, this very principle is being mocked at, and more significantly, being set aside.
Singapore’s “democracy” will now see more un-elected MPs in Parliament. These are: appointed NMPs, “loser” NCMPs, and “walkover” MPs.
Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) are appointed by the government. They are not elected by the people.
Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) are candidates of an election who have been rejected by the people.
Walkover MPs are those who, for various reasons, do not face any contests in an election.
All three categories are MPs which have not won the people’s support or mandate.
Yet, if the latest changes were implemented in 2006, we would potentially have seen:
9 NMPs
7 NCMPs
38 Walkover MPs
That means, Parliament would have consisted of 54 MPs who were not elected by the people. This is 58 per cent of the 93 seats in Parliament. This is astoundingly more than half the number of seats in the House.
Should we then celebrate this “political liberalization” as the prime minister packages it to be?
It is possible that we will see this 58 per cent of un-elected MPs increase in the next elections as more GRCs are created and the opposition finds it hard to contest all of them, resulting in even more “walkover” MPs for the ruling party.
Parliament being filled with a majority of un-elected members is a joke. Pure and simple, no matter what rhetoric the prime minister uses in trying to convince one and all to accept these changes.
Perhaps this is the biggest danger facing Singapore right now – that Parliament is becoming more and more un-representative of the people. This is especially so when MPs like Hri Kumar is lulled into even suggesting that the prime minister appoints un-elected Singaporeans as ministers.
What Singaporeans should also watch out for are opposition parties which, being seduced by PAP rhetoric and by its own selfish political reasons, accept such changes and even see them as “a way forward” for our democracy, or even as an “improvement” – as Ms Sylvia Lim said in Parliament today.
Clearly, a system which results in more than half of Parliament consisting of un-elected members is faulty, to say the least, and a mockery.
—–
Related posts:
- A mockery of Parliament
- 20 Years of the GRC: Walkover political careers (Part Two)
- STOMP the biggest loser in TPJC controversy
- Questions to be asked in Parliament by MPs
- Highlights of questions to be asked in Parliament by MPs
29) AllKindsofMP on May 29th, 2009 11.02 am
“Of the 3, walkover MPs are the worst. They have no clear mandate or whatsoever from the people whom they represented.”
MANDATE? IF appointed or nominated is it considered Mandate to have power?
i wonder.
Wah, 1st world ah. oleh….. oleh. oleh. oleh…….
I heard someone say GRC stands for “Go Round Circles” &
” Get Rotten Comfort”………………No Choice Meh!
GRC = Gerrymandering Round (the) Clock
You calculation is not quite correct. If the proposed system was applied in 2006, we would have:
84 elected MPs (including 38 walkovers)
7 NCMPs
9 NMPs
————
Total: 100 MPs
54 walkovers, NCMPs and NMPs
54%.
The next election will probably see an increase in the number of elected MPs, due to population increase.
I know the numbers are stil awful, but really it’s up to good people to join the opposition and stand for election, and for Singaporeans to choose wisely and not out of fear or ignorance.
Hi Joel,
Thanks for response at 47
Naive perhaps, but I think we can have non elected Ministers without the system being abused. I don’t claim to be 100% right, but I believe I am being no more naive that those who think that an elected MP is definitely a good one, that voters will always vote wisely, that a freer system will definitely lead to better government. I have met lots of people who vote for one party for the silliest reasons (this applies also for those who vote the PAP).
I think we can judge Ministers by the responses to crisis and their policies. For example, I believe that the Minister of Health in particular has been responding very well.
Hi Gerald,
how much will the projected proportion of minority representation go up or down after the next elections, assuming PM Lee’s reform plan and figures go through?
56) SY on May 30th, 2009 11.01 am
You see SY, if we start to allow no-elected Ministers to enter into parliament then we open the doors to abuse. We cannot be short-sighted as to see only the present, which seems logical to YOU…. but in the long run, it will definitely open doors for abuse. Human are like that!!!! Atomic power was never researched and developed to be used as a weapon of mass destruction, it was suppose to be an alternative power source. BUT WHAT DID WE USE IT FOR?
SY, you may be too young to see it or experience it. From history, we know PAP will eventually abuse it. FYI, the Health ministers did not response to the crisis, it is the crisis team…. you gave too much credit to the ministers. And by the way, he was instrumental in passing the legistration for legalising the organ trade policy. THAT SUCKS!!!!!
Ruling party (whoever is it) should not be allowed to change Constitution as and when they like it.
Constitution changes should be done only through a referrendum.
I tot there will be more single wards and less members in each GRC? So what is the problem? This new arrangement should allow more opposition to participate in the coming GE.
My only complain is we should go back to all single ward consts instead of having GRCs.
Its a mockery of people’s rights. We are slowly but surely moving towards losing out right to vote. These people are no longer accountable to the people. They pay themselves millions and appoint who they please. Just look at the attendance at paliament on the day of the debate, it was almost empty. they know that if they have to face the people in single seat .than they would have to perform. we need to vote them out
can anyone explain based on what merits or contributions do u choose a MP?
Someone once told this story; when he was young, he played a game where he created two football teams. One was his team and the other was the opposing team. I think everyone with average intelligence will know which team will obviously turn out to be the eventual winner.
I found this latest proposal by the PM very insulting and I think lot’s of common people like me are insulted. It’s the usual patronizing approach based on the premise that many of us are not able to think.
Why do we want to have dummies in parliament who are allowed to talk but cannot represent the views of the people and vote for changes that will truly improve the livelihood of the community? In fact, many of the approved and appointed NCMPs do not speak for the people but only speak for themselves or the interest groups that they represent. The end outcome is the community does not seem to benefit from anything discussed in parliament.
If we look indepth into this proposed changes, it seems to be a dose that will bring the elected opposition into ineffectiveness and thus the death of parliamentary democracy.
I can only remember our Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong of having previously said those famous words of “How to fix the opposition?”. So after being our Prime Minister for all these years, he is only capable of coming up with the latest Parliament changes as proof of “how to fix the opposition”.
So is the reason why he needed so many Ministers in the Prime Minister’s Department as “assistants” to come up with these proposals?
So our PM was pre-occupied in the last few years with spending most of his time on how to fix the opposition. It’s no wonder that we have lost so many billions in our reserves. What a joke!
The Father, the Son and Holy PAP!
60) Mouseking on May 30th, 2009 5.15 pm
king, do not be taken for a ride by their words. The reason for smaller GRCs is due to re-boundary classification of the constituencies. The GRCs has been a winning bet for the PAP and they are confident that reducing the 6-members GRCs to 5-members will not affect the effectiveness of winning GRCs. As a matter of fact, GRCs is their baby, and reducing it to a 5-member type does not affect it much, giving more liberty for the re-drawing of the boundaries to suit the PAP in the next election. In fect if you calculate …. if the GRCs is reduced to 5 MPs …. every 5 reduction can create another GRCs … Now they can put in 6 backbenchers instead of 5.
The PAP will not abolish the GRCs system. HOWEVER:
If according to the PAP, that GRCs is good because it consolidate resources and serve the residents better and it is not used to disadvantage the opposition, then make all constituencies contest on its own like a SMC. After the election they can group together as a GRC and serve as a group even if there exist amongst them a opposition MPs. This is fairer, if the PAP really are so concern about fair play…..
That means, every MPs have to be open to be contested even if they belongs to a GRC, After the election then the grouping will take into effect FOR THE GOOD OF THE CONSTITUENCIES……
Will they do it? I am doubtful, because the GRCs is a tool to fix up the opposition.
AS for the 12 SMC, it is unlike they will fill it up with ministers, at least not all of the 12 SMCs, it is too much of a risk for the PAP. Everyone knows, including PAP, that hey will loose more sits to the oppositions the next election. The extra SMC is used by PAP as a damage control tactics ….. by calculation …. if the opposition can only take 2 seats out of 9 SMCs, then 12 SMCs will probably gives the opposition 1 more seat….. DAMAGE CONTROL !!!!
To change ….. The opposition must contest every seats and give the people a chance to vote for them….. AND the people MUST VOTE FOR THEM…. PUT AS MUCH oppositions into the parliament as possible ….
THAT will tell the PAP we are not idiots and we will not be fooled by them. If they do not represent the people, we want someone else who does…………
To add to my recent posting….. It is time for the OPPOSITION to work together to come out with an alternative governance plan and strategies,
Especially on the checks on themselves if they become the government.
How the law will be independent of the ruling party and that government is not above the law.
How they will treasure freedom of speech. More channels for public to engage the government.
The revamp of the salary structures of the government.
The helps in both social and financial for the common people.
How CPF can be fairer to the citizens.
How ISA can be amended to safe guard it being abuse.
How to ensure that whatever government is ruling, they cannot change constitution to suit themselves.
Just some of the issues, people want to hear. The public do not want to hear skeletons in hidden closets…. they want to hear what the opposition will do for them if they get elected. THIS IS MORE IMPORTANT!!!!
60) Mouseking on May 30th, 2009 5.15 pm
//I tot there will be more single wards and less members in each GRC? So what is the problem? …My only complain is we should go back to all single ward consts instead of having GRCs.//
But please remember that the GRC is a two edged sword. It works both way.
In good times the ruling party will win the GE as there are many walkovers since the opposition parties fear of losing their deposits in GRCs anchored by sure-win, heavy-weight ministers.
Not so when the economy is very bad and a Great Depression looms with a fall in the GDP of say 25%, high unemployment and people are crying for a change.
A freak election then could wipe out the PAP as GRCs after GRCs are lost to the opposition parties. This is the ultimate nightmare scenario for the PAP, if and when the folks in the heartlands become really angry and turn away from the PAP. At that time even an offer for free HDB lift upgrades will not work.
There is a bleak economic tectonic shift coming especially when the time comes for another General Election in 2011 or if decided by the PM in early 2010.
Since “unity is strength” IMHO, the opposition parties should put their differences aside and form an “opposition caucus” to leverage on this coming economic perfect storm and give the PAP a run for their money in the next GE.
#22 , I also have the same doubt as you.
Given that for the last 50 years, there is no strong Opposition party due to whatever reasons there are, it seems to me that the People can ACCEPT or live with having no such Strong Party. Current Opposition parties cannot be considered strong. WP can be considered ok but not strong in terms of the number of ‘good men’ (and women) it has. It has used up so many decades and still only 2 MPs in the house. 1 of them has no bill veto power.
There is Clearly many talents in singapore judging by the 81 MPs in the house.
84 MPs for the dot, a very small country. So many hundreds of thousands are not citizens but PRs or FTs or FWs or expats dependents or here for study or tour.
Thus, I feel that it is very clear there is enough talents. At least a few strong talents exists as potential new Opposition Party candidates. The Reality is for several possible reasons, they Consciously Would not Join to Balance the situation.
This realisation leads me to feel that singaporeans know they are Responsible AND they Consciously made the Decision for the last 50 years. So, I WONDER is is it true that Singaporeans in General Consciously want such a situation we see today where there IS NO shortage of Talents. There is prolly a Shortage of Stepping Forward?
Is it fair to say the PEOPLE have been Responsible for the status quo , which we cannot say there is no room for improvement? If so, I can then say, You People Are Responsible.
?????????
For Sg to move to the next century….we must go demolish GRC……best man get voted in…..otherwise just remove parliment…save all the troubles.
GRC seems to create new problems MPs…fire lah…throw chair lah….what else????? Single MP will be on the ball at all times otherwise ….OUT you go….the next election.Hmmmm good ideas… any supporters????
68) Curious on May 31st, 2009 9.42 pm
In this issue, I agree with you.
I would like you guys to think further than the 5-member GRCs and the 12 SMCs and consider for a moment whether this PAP government would put itself at a disadvantage so that there is a better chance for the opposition to win in an election contest. Why would the PAP want to do this and create disharmony, distrust and disdain within its own camp? This is the ‘foolishness’ I spoke of when I said that this PAP government still think of the electorate as a stupid one, like we have always seemed to be.
We, the people must be able to think one or two steps ahead of the PAP, to fully grasp an understanding of where these changes are leading us to. I believe that come election time, you will not get a straight fight between a PAP candidate against an opposition candidate in each of the SMCs. I am expecting a three-corner or even a four-corner fight. Mark my words, there will be a sudden increase of independent candidates, which I expect will be placed there by the PAP camp – to dilute the votes of the opposition – and effect a win for PAP.
Likewise for the GRCs. Do not be surprised if there are teams of independent candidates stepping forward to form three-corner fights in hotly disputed areas. We, the voters, must be ready for such eventualities and tell ourselves now, that should there be any three-cornered fight, our votes must not go to any unknown independent candidates.
:”Mandate” is not something that is black and white or a whole or none thing. There is a high level of mandate or a low level of mandate.
NMPs are selected by mostly PAP MPs who have a mandate from the people.
NCMPs have garnered a high percent of votes against PAP candidates. Some NCMPs were that close to unseating PAP candidates. If the NCMP was given randomly by the PAP govt in the sense that even those who lost their deposits can be NCMP, then yes it is not fair.
You forget that NMPs and NCMPs are already not full MPs and their powers are clipped in lieu of the weaker mandate they receive. If they have the same powers of elected MPs, then yes, it is not fair.
Walkover PAP MPs can also be said to have a bigger mandate than elected PAP MPs since nobody dares to even challenge them.
Is the British House of Lords a mockery of the British Parliament? Ask yourself this.
Hi Gemami,
Our parliament already resembles a bicarmel house. Walkover PAP MPs form the Upper House while Non-Walkover PAP, Opposition MPs, NCMPs and NMPs form the Lower House. It is a sad state of affairs.
it has been said that a political party’s main goal is to stay in power. thus anything and everything they do is for the achievement of that main goal.
Hi Donaldson,
It is indeed and the worst part of it all is that the people are now being made into players of their political game. We have been made the reason for the changes. I am not interested in their politcal game. All I want is for my interest as well as the interests of my Singapore family to be well looked after.
Why are we paying for their political games, just like Hougang and Potong Pasir residents have been paying for their choice of an opposition leader? This is not governing. I really do not know what it is called.
Frankly I am quite surprised and happy to hear that the ruling party has unilarterally make effort to have more opposition memers and NCMP in Parliament. The reason is that they want more sparring so that policies can be vigorously debated.
Whether they make good use of the opportunity is up to them. If they do then all Singaporeans will benefit.
71) Joel Low on June 1st, 2009 3.09 am
//Curious on May 31st, 2009 9.42 pm, In this issue, I agree with you.//
Thank you Joel. IMHO, the strategy for the Opposition Caucus should be to pool resources and talents, work the ground early and mobilize the constituencies with a view to contest EVERY GRC and SMC in the next GE.
This needs a lot of organization and money and fund-raising should start immediately.
Last week Obama was in Beverly Hills , California to attend a US$3 million fund-raising dinner for the Democratic Party. Each plate cost the 1000 or so attendees US$2,500. And many couples paid US$35,000 for dinner and a photo opportunity with the President.
In Singapore I suggest that a few similar, less-expensive fund-raising dinners be organized at say a posh hotel each time plus a nationwide fund-raising campaign by telephone calls and through the internet but all such activities must not violate The Political Donations Act.
Since the opposition parties currently have little or no visibility, the Opposition Caucus must think big and strive to project a “visibility” by drawing up a list of “shadow ministers” of really talented people in Singapore to give the PAP a run of the money.
Then the Singapore people can judge for themselves whether the Opposition Caucus’ team of “shadow ministers” has the credibility and ability to replace the PAP should they win the next GE and if they like what they see IMHO they will vote for them without hesitation.
Errata: 78) Curious on June 1st, 2009 11.06 pm
Sorry, last 4 words in the penultimate paragraph should read “a run for the money.
Knowing how thin-skinned the ruling party is, the opposition parties must be careful they are not charged with ‘campaigning’.
I agree, they need to get their acts together well before elections are formally called.
Re #67 by JL and #78 by Curious
Good suggestions for the opposition parties to develop their strategies. In particular, they should start by laying out clearly a promise to propose a bill to put the GRC voting system and future constitutional changes on voters rights to referendums; the intent is to prevent changes that suit a majority party. The GRC was sold as a way to bring some minority representation into parliament but has since been over-exploited to bring in others without true mandates from the constituencies at the expense of other parties or independents. It is a good idea turned into a bad one. If excesses are not checked it tends to get worse, and relying on self-regulation is no assurance – yes we may get a generation of good people but human weaknesses creep in along the way, especially now that the skewed money benefit for the ruling has become a distraction from passionate public service. It doesn’t matter if the proposed bills are likely to be defeated but it gives a reason to vote them and test their sincerity.
80) Peter Sellers on June 2nd, 2009 12.39 pm
//Knowing how thin-skinned the ruling party is, the opposition parties must be careful they are not charged with ‘campaigning’.//
Such “opposition caucus” would be advised by a team of constitutional lawyers so that it won’t run foul of the law. But this needs a large organization and plenty of money and talented people to run it.
//I agree, they need to get their acts together well before elections are formally called.//
If they wait until the election date is announced it will be too late and if they think that they can take on the PAP’s well-oiled political machinery by going to the GE with a fragmented group of small, poorly funded opposition parties they will live to regret it and deserve to be relegated to stay in the political wilderness for the next 44 years.
81) TS Lee on June 2nd, 2009 1.30 pm
//In particular, they should start by laying out clearly a promise to propose a bill to put the GRC voting system and future constitutional changes on voters rights to referendums//
I agree and in future the 14 GRCs should only have two candidates each, one a minority candidate and the other a non minority candidate. There is no legitimate reason to have a 5 or 6 member GRC.
More importantly the Opposition Caucus should promise to lower the pay of the ministers and top echelon of the civil service, help the elderly poor folks and up the baby bonus if they are voted in to form the new govt.
// and future constitutional changes on voters rights to referendums//
I also agree with you here too as only the citizens can change the constitution.
Can the management committee in a social club change the club’s constitution?
No, the social club’s constitution can only be changed by three quarters of the members voting to make the change.
I think a lot of people might have forgotton that how GRC came in place….the PAP has been monitoring every election rally closely. They say saw the crowd and also saw their own crowd. It was worrying. GRC manage to serve their purpose.Curtails opposition. What is good for the Goverment not necessarily good for the people. To have strong goverment is to have strong oppostion. Checks and balance.If my memory did not fail me, one PAP lost in Potong Pasir. He won in GRC.That’s is politics in singapore.They can come out with all kind rubbish like NMPs or other things, just to please themselves that they have make changes for the people. Singaporean’s IQ is not that LOWWWWWW!!!!
aiyoyo
some/most of the elites walk-over one, how to choose?
aiyoyo
useless all talk no action NMPs like Thio Li-Ann should have been thrown away long ago. yet useful ones NMPs like Eunice Olsen (vs town council minibonds losses) are quitting. what in the world is this crap?
Thio Li-Ann has got a misguided set of values to keep her fire in her belly. besides she has a mother aka Feminist Mentor who must have been constantly indoctrinating her into a drone.
Eunice Olsen likely woken up to the fact she’s not to keen to just “make noise” & so left. likely a women with an independant thinking brain, ambitious go getting is not going to just “make noise” sit or stand. leave before learned helplessness sets in.
just my observation.
#83 by Curious,
Indeed, top government remuneration is an opportunity for the opposition to score here too as the ruling party is in denial that this matter is a lightning rod for discontent. It is a good idea to remunerate them sufficiently so that they are not distracted to look for supplementary income by leveraging on their positions but in the construct either greed got into the way or they forgot that good politics does not equal to good commercial sense (NKF at one stage made the same error when it forgot that a charity is not the same as a commercial enterprise).
The emphasis is not simply to reduce their pay but to propose something better. Political masters and civil servants must be considered separately. The type of people that can excel in one is different from the other. Let us make some suggestions for all the political parties to think about bearing in mind that good proposals should bring into government good politicians with passion for improving the lives of all citizens and whose present and future material needs are sufficiently taken care. If it is personal wealth they seek, they are not the ones we need.
88) TS Lee on June 3rd, 2009 5.07 pm
//The emphasis is not simply to reduce their pay but to propose something better. Political masters and civil servants must be considered separately. The type of people that can excel in one is different from the other//
I agree.
//If it is personal wealth they seek, they are not the ones we need.//
I could not agree more. Excellently put it.
PAP MP Hri Kumar has responded to Online Citizen:
http://hri-kumar.blogspot.com/2009/06/nominated-ministers.html
My suggestion in Parliament last week to allow the PM to appoint Ministers from outside the pool of MPs has attracted support, criticism and speculation.
Some people speculated I was putting forward the suggestion on someone else’s instructions. That is not how things work. No one tells me what to say or vets my speeches. The first time the leaders knew of my speech was when they heard me in Parliament.
To william the con @90
“No one tells me what to say or vets my speeches.”
- We are not newborns! They don’t have to tell you or vet your speeches. Its called self-censorship and you know exactly what will get their tails wagging.
To PAP MP Hri Kumar:
UK & US have powerful independent bodies including the media as Govt watchdogs besides equally strong oppositions. Think for yourself the case of Spore!
It is absurd to have Nominated Ministers in a unichameral legislature without direct elections for head of government.
In the US, the cabinet is appointed. But the members of cabinet are members of the executive, not members of the legislature, and cannot vote on bills. Of course they cannot; they have no mandate! Also, they are appointed by a president who is directly elected. If the performance of the cabinet is no good, the people only need to remove the president at the next election. They do not have to remove half the members of parliament. Also, the presidential elections are conducted in a democratic environment, with a free press, a preponderance of ideas and no lack of people who will act on them since they do not live in a climate of fear or in a culture of sycophancy.
Where there are bichameral legislatures, with upper and lower houses, it is possible for there to be unelected ministers, but these ministers have limited legislative powers because they sit in an unelected chamber. Also, unelected houses have their roots in ridiculous class structures that thankfully Singapore does not have (though sadly it seems to be emerging). Singapore rejected that form of parliament, and quite rightly so.
It is not legitimate to stuff parliament with partisans for political purposes. I am sure all are agreed on that. Yet, it is difficult to see how Nominated Ministers, in Singapore’s political landscape, can in the long term result in anything else.
Walk-overs are not something to be proud of. But the tone of the article seem to be blaming the PAP for the lack of personnels contesting from the opposition. The PAP should be concern with opposition fielding more candidates to compete against them?
Doesn’t really make sense. However, I do acknowledge that the playing field is uneven and the opposition are marginalized in that sense.
>> But the tone of the article seem to be blaming the PAP for the lack of personnels contesting from the opposition.
>> However, I do acknowledge that the playing field is uneven and the opposition are marginalized in that sense.